They do not possess the knowledge needed to differentiate molten steel from molten aluminum.

You do not need to be a metallurgist to recognise steel....lol

skyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

In addition, we have videos and photos as molten aluminum is flowing out of WTC and since that area is where tons of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the fires that can be seen in that ares which are burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, it is safe to say that the molten flow is aluminum, which can also be confirmed by the fact that silvery aluminum droplets can be clearly seen falling from that point.

No it is not safe to say because the molten metal neither looks or behaves lile aluminium

skyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Most of the molten aluminum would have been contained within the WTC building from where the aluminum flow commenced, so where did you think that tons of molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 would end up after WTC2 collapsed? There would have been tons of molten aluminum within the rubble.

I'm sure there would be lots of aluminium in the rubble, just like there was lots of steel too.

Its hilarious that you think that even ironworkers who say they witnessed molten steel at GZ are not capable of recognising molten steel....lol

Even more hypocritical is that you seem to believe that a metallugist isn't needed to identify molten aluminium. Which begs the question, if molten aluminium is so easy to identify, that it doesn't require the expertise of a metallurgist according to your logic to identify it, then surely it must mean they would have identified it as molten aluminium if they saw it.

Yes they do. After all, some have claimed that they saw molten steel and yet, no evidence to support their case while on the other hand, we have videos and photos of molten aluminum and proof that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but far too low to melt steel.

In addition, there was no source at ground zero capable of producing molten steel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews, but that is not what we are talking about, so in that regard, what they saw was molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 and from the facade of the WTC buildings, which contained large amounts of aluminum.

Well until you explain why you need to be a metallurgist to recognise molten steel but not molten aluminium, you fail. lol

You do not need to be a metallurgist to be able douse the molten metal and identify it...lol

skyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

After all, some have claimed that they saw molten steel and yet, no evidence to support their case while on the other hand, we have videos and photos of molten aluminum and proof that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but far too low to melt steel.

Again, there is no evidence to support molten aluminium.

You think the things which you have invented in your head are evidence...lol

skyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

In addition, there was no source at ground zero capable of producing molten steel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews, but that is not what we are talking about, so in that regard, what they saw was molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 and from the facade of the WTC buildings, which contained large amounts of aluminium.

Totally unsubstantiated nonsense seeing as the dripping metal has none of the characteristics of aluminium..lol

Well until you explain why you need to be a metallurgist to recognise molten steel but not molten aluminium, you fail.

We can simply go back a few weeks to where Babe Ruth visited New York and misidentified the aluminum facade as stainless steel.

Quote

You do not need to be a metallurgist to be able douse the molten metal and identify it..

No, but you need knowledge to identify the type of molten metal you are applying the water on.

Quote

Again, there is no evidence to support molten aluminium.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11.

It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys.

Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34:

“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).”
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:

“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

Additionally, here are two photos of molten aluminum flowing from the same location where much of the airframe of United 175 was burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

We can simply go back a few weeks to where Babe Ruth visited New York and misidentified the aluminum facade as stainless steel.

So your argument is that because one person made a mistake, that everyone will make the mistake unless they are metallurgists or you........lol

Stunning logic...Truly!! lol

skyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

No, but you need knowledge to identify the type of molten metal you are applying the water on.

So how did the firefighters identify the metal they were going to apply the water on??

skyeagle409, on 26 March 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11.

It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys.

Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the pertinent references:
FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34:

“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).”
NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:

“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

Additionally, here are two photos of molten aluminum flowing from the same location where much of the airframe of United 175 was burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.

So once again, you have been proven wrong.

Sorry but the person who wrote that is not a metallurgist and therefore this entire article is pure bunkem debunkem! lol

So your argument is that because one person made a mistake, that everyone will make the mistake unless they are metallurgists or you.......

Apparently, I have seen molten aluminum on many occasions to make the call, whereas, you have not. Let's do a review.

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the airliner's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out of the side of the building.

Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Apparently, I have seen molten aluminum on many occasions to make the call, whereas, you have not. Let's do a review.

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the airliner's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out of the side of the building.

Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

I've already told you, but apparently, eyewitnesses and video and recordings are no longer evidence when compared to a panto debunker sitting behind their keyboard claiming to know better than everyone at GZ...lol

I've already told you, but apparently, eyewitnesses and video and recordings are no longer evidence when compared to a panto debunker sitting behind their keyboard claiming to know better than everyone at GZ...lol

Videos did not capture the sound of bomb explosions and once again, I will ask you: What type of explosions are common in New York City?